Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Maa Sai School, Through Manager Cum Prin vs Shanti Lal @ Pintu Modi And Ors. … on 12 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13862]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
[S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1545/2015]
Maa Sai School, Through Manager Cum Principal, Maa Sai
School, resident of 10-11, Anand Vihar Colony, Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shanti Lal @ Pintu Modi son of Bhanwar Lalji, aged about
37 years, resident of House No.1, Mahaveer Colony,
Chittorgarh, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2. Alka wife of Shanti Lal @ Pintu, aged 36 years, Resident of
House No.1, mahavir Colony, Chittorgarh Tehsil & District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
3. Shreyans son of Shanti Lal @ Pintu Modi son of Bhanwar
Lalji, aged 5 years, resident of House No.1 Mahaveer
Colony, Chittorgarh, through natural guardian father Shanti
Lal @ Pintu Modi son of Bhanwar Lalji, aged 37 years,
resident of House No.1, Mahaveer Colony, Chittorgarh,
Tehsil & District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4. United India Insurance Company, through Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited, Pratapnagar,
Chittorgarh, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
5. Dinesh Chandra son of Shri Prem Shankarji Dayama,
resident of Babrana, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
[S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 27/2018]
1. Shanti Lal @ Pintu Modi S/o Bhanwar Lal,
2. Alka W/o Shanti Lal @ Pintu,
3. Shreyansh S/o Shanti Lal @ Pintu, Minor Through His
Natural Guardian Father Shanti Lal @ Pintu Modi S/o
Bhanwar Lal Modi. All Are By Caste Modi And R/o House
No. 1, Mahaveer Colony, Tehsil And District - Chittorgarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Maa Sai School Through Managercum Principal, 10-11
Anand Vihar Colony, Chittorgarh. Owner
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Branch
Manager, Branch Office, Chittorgarh. Insurer
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (2 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
3. Dinesh Chandra S/o Prem Shankar Dayama, R/o Babrana,
Tehsil - Kapasan, District - Chittorgarh. Driver
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera for
Mr. Sandeep Saruparia (for the owner
of the vehicle in question).
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya (for claimants in
cross-objection)
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas (for
insurance company).
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/03/2025
1. The present Civil Misc. Appeal No.1545/2015 as well as
Cross Objection (Civil) No.27/2018, have been filed challenging
the impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 passed by
the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal [‘learned Tribunal’],
Chittorgarh in Misc. Claim Case No.287/2009 whereby, the learned
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the
claimants/cross-objectors and awarded Rs.1,75,000/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum while fastening the liability to pay the
compensation upon the owner and the driver of the vehicle in
question, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2008 at around 1:30
PM, when one Sakshi was playing outside her house, a bus of Maa
Sai School bearing registration No.RJ-09-P-2394 driven by one
Dinesh in a rash and negligent manner, turned the wheel of the
bus over Sakshi due to which she received grievous and fatal
injuries and resultantly, she died. A claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the
claimants/cross-objectors seeking compensation on account of
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (3 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
death of Sakshi, which came to be partly allowed vide impugned
judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 and thus, being aggrieved
of the same, the appellant-Owner has preferred the present misc.
appeal and the cross-objections has been filed by the
claimants/cross-objectors seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
{S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1545/2015}:
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner submits that the
learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated
02.06.2015 has held that the driver of the vehicle in question was
not having valid Driving License to drive the said vehicle but was
having the license to drive Light Motor Vehicles [‘LMV’] only. He
further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018] decided on
06.11.2024 has upheld the decision rendered in the case of
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.”
[2017 14 SCC 663] and thus, the driver of the vehicle in
question which is registered as goods vehicle, was not required to
have transport vehicle license. Relevant part of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“…. 131. Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page
125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg is permitted to
operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional
authorization under Section 10(2) (e) of the MV Act
specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing
purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely
separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The
special eligibility requirements will however continue to(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (4 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles
carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the
necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport
Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided
in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act
and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’
would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles
with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium
goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods
vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld
but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the
absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per
incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV
Rules were not considered in the said judgment. …..”
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is
unable to refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant-owner of the vehicle in question.
5. In view of the submissions made and taking into
consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the decision rendered
in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) was upheld, the
direction given by the learned Tribunal to the non-claimants Nos.2
and 3 i.e. owner and driver of the vehicle in question in the
impugned award dated 02.06.2015 to the extent of paying the
amount of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally
while exonerating the insurance company to pay the said
compensation, is hereby quashed and set aside.
6. All the non-applicants are held jointly and severally liable to
pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned
Tribunal to the claimants along with the interest (as awarded by
the learned Tribunal), if not already paid/deposited.
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (5 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
7. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed in the
above terms. Stay application as well as all other pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
{S.B. CROSS OBJECTION (CIVIL) NO.27/2018}:
8. The only plea raised by the learned counsel representing the
claimants/cross-objectors is that the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal to the claimants is on the lower side. He also
submits that the learned Tribunal has not granted any
compensation under non-pecuniary heads viz. consortium to the
sibling as well as funeral expenses.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and
submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not
suffers from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant any
interference therein. He further submits that the amount under
the head of consortium is awardable only to the parents of the
deceased child and not to his/her siblings in presence of parents.
10. I have heard and considered the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the parties at Bar and have carefully gone
through the material placed on record.
11. As far as the contention of the counsel representing the
Insurance Company that consortium is awardable only the parents
of the deceased child and not to the siblings of the same is
concerned, the said position of law in this regard has already been
settled by this Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Jethmal & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (6 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
No.2811/2019 (with other connected matter) decided on
01.10.2024 wherein, this Court while taking into consideration the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ramalias
Chuhru Ram, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on
18.09.2018, awarded compensation towards the head of
Consortium to the brother of the deceased as well while observing
that:
“28. This Court also finds that, contrary to the pecuniary
heads, where factors such as dependency are important to
ascertain the loss, the consortium, being a non-pecuniary head
is not to be considered in the light of dependency of a claimant
upon the deceased inasmuch as even the siblings, as in the
present case, would be deprived of the love, care, affection and
company of the deceased, which can not be quantified.
Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation towards the head of consortium to the brother of
the deceased also.”
12. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Sadhna Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors.” (Civil
Appeal No.3763 of 2025) has awarded compensation under the
head of consortium to the sister of the deceased as well in the
presence of other claimants viz. wife, daughter, mother and father.
Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel representing
the respondent-Insurance Company, does not stand to scrutiny.
13. This Court is also of the view that losing a child in an
accident is an unfathomable tragedy for the parents as well as his/
her siblings. The anguish and grief that accompany such a loss are
profound and enduring leaving the parents and the siblings
grappling with emotions that often defy description. In a case of
death of a child, no amount of money can compensate the parents
as well as siblings of the deceased child however, it is the duty of
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (7 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
the Court to award just compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kishan Gopal and Ors. v. Lala and Ors. :
[(2014) 1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased child was
10 years, took the notional income of the deceased child as
Rs.30,000/- per annum looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
[(2022) 1 SCC 317], where the age of the deceased child was 7
years, took notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/-
per annum and after applying Multiplier of 15, granted total
amount of Rs.3,75,000/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’
and also an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of the parents under
the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of
funeral expenses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, also in the case of
Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors : [(2023) 1 SCC
204], where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has
taken the notional income as Rs.30,000/- per annum including
future prospects and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the
compensation awardable under the head of ‘loss of dependency’
and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads.
14. Thus, looking to the above factual matrix of the case and the
age of the deceased child i.e. 1.5 years and also in light of the
above cited judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to take the
notional income of the deceased child as Rs.15,000/- per annum
and the multiplier of 15 in light of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya vs. The National
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : [(2022) INSC 1108].
Furthermore, looking into the facts of the instant case where there
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (8 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
are three claimants (the father, the mother and one sibling), this
Court deems it just to award Rs.1,45,200/- towards Consortium.
Furthermore, this Court also deems it just to award Rs.18,150/-
towards the Funeral Expenses.
15. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs the
compensation awardable to the claimants is as under:
Particulars Awarded by the Awarded/modified
learned Tribunal by the Court
Loss of dependancy Rs.1,75,000/- [C] Rs.2,25,000/-
(i.e. Rs.15,000/- x 15)
(after deduction of
[A]
Rs.50,000/- awarded
Conventional Heads Rs.1,63,350/-
towards interim
(Consortium + Funeral
Expenses) [B] compensation under
Section 140 of the
Total [A] + [B] Rs.3,88,350/- [D]
Act of 1988.)
Enhanced Amount Rs.2,13,350/-
[D]-[C]
16. With the above observation and direction, the instant cross-
objection preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 02.06.2015 passed by the learned tribunal
is modified accordingly.
17. The claimants are held entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,13,350/- along with interest @ 9% (same
as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing of the
claim petition in accordance with the directions of the learned
Tribunal as modified by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.
1545/2015. The amount of compensation, if any, disbursed to
the claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13862] (9 of 9) [CMA-1545/2015]
18. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
57-58-/Devesh/-
(Downloaded on 17/03/2025 at 09:25:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link